Philosiology, a blog that treats philosophers as delicate yet misunderstood rare creatures that a guide is require to handle them. “Philosophers are not like normal people.” If you have had problems with them Katie the blogger/philosiologist/philosopher-whisperer is here to help. Continue reading →

I get what you are trying to say. I agree that the establishment the outsider each have their own set of bias and interest. Where i disagree is your “Table 1: The hidden logic behind the conservatism and the liberalism”.
What mainly differnciate a Conservatives to that of a Liberal is not having different logic or different level of rick tolerance. what differentiate them is they belong to different interest group, and benefit/loss from each change differently.

Conservatives:
-Beneficiary of current social system (which is being challenged by changing demographic, new ideas or advancement in technology/science).
-They are fearful of any change from their “reference point” (by reference point I mean a position in a society -conservative believe that they deserves).
-Fearful of change by slippery slop (this is why they are more likely to be absolutist).
-where rational analysis supports change, conservatives uses emotions or vague moral value to depend their reference point.
-Conservatives are ok with change if it brings back closer to their reference point.
(eg. usually while older man, with asset or good income)

Liberal
-are non-establishment, they are poorer, less represented then the conservatives.
-They seem to uses rational analysis more, because changing demographic, new ideas, advancement in tech/science seem to support their view.
-where rational analysis does not supports change, liberals uses emotions or vague moral value to push for change.
-More of a relativist, question established norm, prefer relativism, fluid of value and morality.
-More comfortable with the risk of slippery slop
(eg. usually women, immigrant, minority)

This is probably a more cynical view of the liberal-conservative divide. I think they both use rational analysis and emotional/moral based plead interchangeably when it suited their argument. Conservatives cites individual freedom and responsibility as reason against taxing for government health care. Conversely Liberal cites humane dignity for government health care. Of course there are rare individuals that would appear to argue against the interest of their interest group. Those individuals are probably manipulated by persuade opinion leader or certain meme (eg. unemployed man voting Republican due to abortion, gun, security issue against their own economic interest). There is also possibility that the individual has found a way to benefit from speaking against what appears to be his or her interest group (eg. extremely rich supporter of the democratic party, because paying more taxes in exchange for moral high ground is worth it).

obviously there are people who does not exclusively belong to an archetype interest group. A rich black man will have a hard time relating to any of the major interest group, but will in the end vote for a politician that align with his view the closest.